STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

it would of course be wonderful if some way could be found to screen the 'suspicious' passengers and let the 'little old ladies' travel in peace. imo that's likely not going to work. while i don't travel by air very often. i'm usually left wondering who ever came up with the various rules and regulations concerning airtravel, incl. security checks, luggage, carry-ons .... etc.

our last trip was in deceember from toronto to san diego and return. while in toronto the check-in, security check and check by u.s. customs and immigration officers was handled in an efficient and very friendly manner, the return from san diego was more like disorganized chaos (and we did not even have to go through customs and immigration here). at the bottom of it i would say that the personnel was not very well trained in handling their jobs. i'll cite an example : carry-on luggage. we always make sure that our carry-ons (1 per person) are within the size and weight restrictions. surprise, surprise ... when we came to the gate there were passengers that seemed to carry their whole households with them. many passengers had 2, 3 and even 4 pieces of luggage, and the gate personnel didn't bat an eyelash. once all passengers were on the plane there was of course not enough space under seats and in the overhead bins to store all the luggage, so luggage was piled all over the place.

something that doesn't have anything to do with security but shows the disorganization of airlines: we knew that we would not receive a free meal but that we would have to purchase it; that was fine with us. once we were in flight from detroit (were we changed planes) we were told that there were only a few sandwiches and that if you were at the back of the plane ... tough luck ! in the end we were lucky not to have paid $5 for a dried out bun.

since pretty well all airlines are either shortly before bancruptcy or have just emergerged from it (the notable exception being south-west airlines, which seems to turn a tidy profit), airlines are trying to cut costs at all levels, whether paying for security or customer service. (there is even a joke for running an airline : "start with $2 billion and work your way down from that").

recently on CNBC the plight of the airlines industry was discussed and the financial gurus felt that the best solution would be for four or five airlines to go bust, there is simply too much capacity and not enough revenue.

i don't think we'll see a solution to the airport/airline/security problems anytime soon. hbg

0 Replies

After the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an extremist Muslim, the Dutch police was tipped off about a terrorist hide-out in the Hague neighbourhood of Laakkwartier. When policemen tried to enter the building, a hand grenade was thrown at them, they were shot at and a boobytrap exploded. A fourteen-hour siege followed, with hundreds of people who lived around being evicted. Snipers were deployed and flight restrictions announced for a five-mile zone.

Eventually two men were arrested, and four others in simultaneous actions in Amersfoort and Amsterdam. They had been plotting the murder of two Dutch parliamentarians.

One of them was called Jason. Both Hague suspects were recent converts, born to American parents. Neither was Arab.

The same month, in Belgium, female Senator Mimount Bousakla was forced into hiding after receiving death threats by a Muslim extremist, who thought her too forward.

Luckily, the suspect was arrested. He was a white, Flemish Muslim, newly converted to Islam a few years ago.

0 Replies

Sounds to me like you have some problems from within, nimh. We're attempting to address that in the U.S., with mixed results.

Also, when you say "born to American parents", do you mean they were Netherlands citizens? I would expect that people living in the Netherlands, no matter where they were born, to have associated some of the local values. No offense intended.

Van Gogh was an outspoken bigot. But sometimes being outspoken automatically labels you as such.

0 Replies

I think you have some of the same problems - with extremists coming from within rather than consisting only of easily recognizable Middle Easterns, I mean. What was that about that US citizen who was captured by the American troops fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan? He was white. Not to mention homeborne terrorists of other persuasions, as already mentioned in the thread - McVeigh, the Unabomber etc.

(The theme of your problems is different of course - you dont have that whole immigration fracas going on the way we have, not to the same extent, and good for you it is; but the dilemma is the same: terrorists may well not look like the obvious object of profiling.)

It really seems like recent converts to Islam from the West itself make up much of the most unstable extremists. It was another Dutch man (someone van der Ven) who was coaxed in a TV interview into approving of the Van Gogh murder and calling for more similar actions. I've heard it about more pedestrian examples too, the converts are often the most radical. Poses a whole new dimension to policing possible terrorism though.

(I dont know whether Jason and his brother (I think it was) were Dutch or American citizens - the papers just said, "of American origin", or "with American parents". Don't even know whether they were white or black. But Middle Eastern they were not, that was the thing pointed out repeatedly.)

0 Replies

Re: STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

Foxfyre's author wrote:

You say, "Williams, that would be stupid to include females!" But not if Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta were your supervisor. You might be ordered to investigate females and males as possible suspects to avoid committing the politically incorrect sin of sex profiling.

Too bad the rapist manages to escape investigation by a rather convincing drag act. Of course, if the "women" were investigated even to the degree of a cursory check of ID, then the drag act would fail. However due to their convincing acting ability Sid/"Cindy" rapist walks away to re-offend.

I apologise for the weakness of my analogy. However a cook is only as good as his ingredients and I had a rather terrible analogy to work with. The connection between a criminal investigation of an occurance of rape, and a security prevention of a potential terrorist action is a little too feeble to support much extension of the analogy. So I will leave the analogy off and speak plainly.

Terrorists are quite familiar with security procedures, since they perform a top secret technique known as "scoping the joint". If they discover that "Oh, by Allah, these capitalist Americans let white mothers pass by without inspection", then you can be certain that they will organise a white mother to be carrying their weapons.

Your author should stick to economics, I don't think they have a good grasp of counter-terrorism or law-enforcement methodology and their own personal inconvenience seems to be their main motivation. "How dare these security people question me? I am clearly above and beyond such things."

Quote:

What's even more stupid is that pilots and flight attendants face similar screening. Here's my question to you: If a pilot is intent on crashing a plane into a building, does he need to carry anything on board to do it?

"Damn, if only I had some way of overcoming my co-pilot. Maybe if I'm really lucky he won't notice me going to New York instead of Philidelphia."

Quote:

On several occasions, having gone through screening without setting off any alarms, I've been pulled aside for additional screening. Imagine that you're there with a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) supervisor and I'm being subjected to additional screening.

How dare they suspect you? This is why it's called a random screening.

Quote:

You offer him a bet whereby if Williams is discovered to be in possession of something that endangers security -- a knife, gun or bomb -- you'll pay him $5,000, and if I'm not, he'll pay you $100. Do you think he'll take your offer? I'm betting he wouldn't.

For an economist he knows nothing about statistics. Had I personal access to the author, my response would consist merely of a slap upside the head and pointing at an insurance company, casino or bookie. Since I don't have access, I will point out that they randomly question hundreds, if not thousands of people a day in a process called playing the odds.

Of course they don't expect any single person to be carrying a weapon, however through the process they make sure that every terrorist knows that no degree of clever acting or disguise will be sufficient to bypass the process since it's randomly determined. (In addition to actual justification).

Quote:

If I were a terrorist, I'd appreciate the fact that the TSA treats every passenger as having an equal likelihood of being a security threat.

If I were a terrorist, I'd take advantage of any holes in their screening system. Perhaps the world would be better off with you as a terrorist than I...

Quote:

Fewer resources would be available to screen me. When law-abiding people are the subject of profiling, it's unfair, and they are insulted -- and rightfully so.

So much so that they write editorial criticising the methods used by airport security staff... :wink:

Those who have read my posts on this board know that I'm an efficiency nut. If it would increase the operating efficiency of airport security then I would be all for profiling, racist or not. What I object to, is a person protesting this issue under the guise of protecting American interests, when he's really just an indignant self-centred prick who's incessed about the effect of the situation upon himself.

0 Replies

Watchmakers writes

Quote:

If it would increase the operating efficiency of airport security then I would be all for profiling, racist or not

Given the minimal percentage of Middle-eastern looking guys going through security at the airport, don't you think it would improve efficiency to put at least most of the toughest scrutiny on them and zip most everybody else right on through the normal and speedier routine security scans and measures?

Personal motives are okay as I suspect it is personal motives that even drives your appreciation for operating efficiency. Before 9/11, I used to leave the house or hotel or whatever about forty five minutes before my flight boarded. That allowed 20-25 minutes to get to the airport, and 20-25 minutes to check my luggage, go through security, and get to the gate.
But now on heavy travel days, I leave the house a full two hours before my flight boards just to allow for the extra time standing in line, extra time in case I and/or others in my party are singled out for extra security.
Sometimes it takes all that time. Sometimes I am left cooling my heels for an hour or more before my flight is called.

I 100% support better trained security people, scanning of all luggage, carry on and checked, and I don't mind at all proving my identify or sending my shoes through the x-ray machine. But I HATE wasting time at the airport and, from an efficiency point of view, how efficient is it to unnecessarily waste thousands and thousands of extra hours of work time, etc. to do exra security on people highly unlikely to be a threat to anybody when a bit of profiling could eliminate a lot of that?

0 Replies

I still cannot figure out why this is an issue at all here in America.

We could easily use the solution that the Israeli's use; put armed guards with shotguns in a small room inbetween the pilot's cabin and the plane.

This whole business of searching, profiling, taking away people's nail clippers, etc., is designed to keep 'middle America' scared and compliant, nothing more, nothing less. It surprises me that you people can't see this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree. Routine security checks for everyone, guards on the plane, finito.

0 Replies

Well what that article does for me is to convince me to fly El Al when I go to the holy land. But then Israel has more folks who want to hurt them than even we do.

0 Replies

Re El Al: There are apt to be quite a few "middle eastern looking guys" on those flights. Best to steer clear, Foxfyre...

0 Replies

Nope they're welcome just so long as they are sufficiently checked out.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Watchmakers writes

Quote:
If it would increase the operating efficiency of airport security then I would be all for profiling, racist or not

Given the minimal percentage of Middle-eastern looking guys going through security at the airport, don't you think it would improve efficiency to put at least most of the toughest scrutiny on them and zip most everybody else right on through the normal and speedier routine security scans and measures?

Do you want efficiency or safety? You keep saying you want to be safe, then in the next breath you talk about moving people through quickly.

Security inevitably impacts convenience. If you find it too inconvenient, you can always take the bus.

And enough with the screening Middle-Eastern guys. We get that you are afraid of them. But try to disengage your fear reflex for a minute and listen: singling out a specific demographic for special screening will not improve security.

0 Replies

No you don't get it Drewdad. I am no more afraid of Middle Eastern looking guys than I am afraid of any guys. What you don't get is that it just doesn't make sense to me that the ONLY people who fit the profile for airport terrorists these days are treated no differently than people who fit no criminal profile of any kind.

Some here made fun of Williams' analogy of the rapist. If the woman says she was raped by a man, do you go looking for a rapist among the women? Or do you check out just the guys?

Same as if the liquor store was knocked off by a tall skinny redheaded man. Do you stop and question the short, fat, bald guys? Or do you stop all the tall, skinny, redheaded guys that happen to be in the vicinity?

If witnesses to a hit and run saw a new red Dodge Ram pickup leaving the scene, do you stop and question the guy driving the bread truck?

I fully realize that terrorists may use decoys and disguises and security should be alert for that. It just doesn't make any sense, however, putting grandma through a virtual strip search after she has alrady passed all the other security and letting the much more likely candidate stroll through security because somebody else like him already got scrutinized and it would be 'offensive' to single him out for extra scrutiny too.

I just like things to make sense, that's all.

0 Replies

Well, according to your above, Foxfyre, liquor stores should be protected especially against tall skinny redheaded men, new red Dodge Ram pickups should be stopped and controlled at any town ... ...

0 Replies

foxfrye wrote:

Quote:

I fully realize that terrorists may use decoys and disguises and security should be alert for that. It just doesn't make any sense, however, putting grandma through a virtual strip search after she has alrady passed all the other security and letting the much more likely candidate stroll through security because somebody else like him already got scrutinized and it would be 'offensive' to single him out for extra scrutiny too.

Can you give a live example of a middle eastern looking guy being able to waltz through the screening process at airports because another guy who looked like him already been screened and it would be offensive to single him out?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Some here made fun of Williams' analogy of the rapist. If the woman says she was raped by a man, do you go looking for a rapist among the women? Or do you check out just the guys?

That would have been me... I didn't exactly make fun of it so much as say that it was a terrible analogy. However based on the simularity of your analogies I can see the basis of the author's appeal to you.

See if you can spot the problems in that analogy.

Quote:

Same as if the liquor store was knocked off by a tall skinny redheaded man. Do you stop and question the short, fat, bald guys? Or do you stop all the tall, skinny, redheaded guys that happen to be in the vicinity?

And again.

Quote:

If witnesses to a hit and run saw a new red Dodge Ram pickup leaving the scene, do you stop and question the guy driving the bread truck?

And again.

If you give up I can point out the problems, but I'd like you to have a look at it and see if you can spot them yourself.

Quote:

I fully realize that terrorists may use decoys and disguises and security should be alert for that. It just doesn't make any sense, however, putting grandma through a virtual strip search after she has alrady passed all the other security and letting the much more likely candidate stroll through security because somebody else like him already got scrutinized and it would be 'offensive' to single him out for extra scrutiny too.

I hope all terrorists think with the clarity of Williams. However, the possibility remains that there are terrorists who, despite being religious nuts, are at least as smart as I am. Terrorists spend months planning this kind of action. It took me approximately thirty seconds to figure out how to get weapons on board a plane past the security you propose.

With months to prepare, consider and perform a practise run I could certainly succeed in the system Williams proposes. The possibilty of a random search introduces an element that is difficult to plan around. Not saying that it's inviable, however random searches remain an added deterent to planned terrorist action.

Security could be improved. Guards on planes, Ion Mobility Spectrometer gateways to detect explosives and an integrated system of identity monitoring would increase security a hundred-fold. However I'm not even sure that the current degree of security would pass a cost-benefit analysis.

I dread the thought that terrorists play RPGs, firing them is bad enough.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No you don't get it Drewdad. I am no more afraid of Middle Eastern looking guys than I am afraid of any guys. What you don't get is that it just doesn't make sense to me that the ONLY people who fit the profile for airport terrorists these days are treated no differently than people who fit no criminal profile of any kind.

Some here made fun of Williams' analogy of the rapist. If the woman says she was raped by a man, do you go looking for a rapist among the women? Or do you check out just the guys?

Same as if the liquor store was knocked off by a tall skinny redheaded man. Do you stop and question the short, fat, bald guys? Or do you stop all the tall, skinny, redheaded guys that happen to be in the vicinity?

If witnesses to a hit and run saw a new red Dodge Ram pickup leaving the scene, do you stop and question the guy driving the bread truck?

I fully realize that terrorists may use decoys and disguises and security should be alert for that. It just doesn't make any sense, however, putting grandma through a virtual strip search after she has alrady passed all the other security and letting the much more likely candidate stroll through security because somebody else like him already got scrutinized and it would be 'offensive' to single him out for extra scrutiny too.

I just like things to make sense, that's all.

No, Fox. I understand your point. But the fact is that profiling is not effective.

Your analogies break down because you're talking about crimes that have already been committed. While airport security is designed to prevent crime.

If you want to talk about the deficiencies of airport security, I'd be happy to join in. I think it's stupid, too. But you're combining two different points.

A. You want people to get through airport security more conveniently.
B. You want Middle-Eastern-looking men to be scrutinized more carefully than everyone else.

B does not accomplish A, as you seem to be suggesting.

0 Replies

I am willing to be convinced that profiling is not effective. But so far you guys haven't convinced me. Unless we give maximum scrutiny to EVERYBODY thus lengthening the process to get on an airplane, it makes more sense to me to consistently focus on those who fit the profile of airline terrorists and do the random extra scrutiny on everybody else.

Watler writes

Quote:

Well, according to your above, Foxfyre, liquor stores should be protected especially against tall skinny redheaded men, new red Dodge Ram pickups should be stopped and controlled at any town ...

If we have a rash of liquor store hold ups committed by tall, skinny, red headed men, and nobody else is knocking off liquor stores, you bet your bippy that tall, skinny red headed men should be scrutinzed much more carefully than the short, fat, bald ones. And if it is only Dodge Ram pickups hitting and running in a given area, then prudence advises to keep a close watch on any of those approaching an intersection.

If you had a variety of ethnic groups highjacking and committing terrorist acts on and with airplanes, different criteria would reasonably apply. But it has been only one ethnic group who has been commiting terrorist acts on and with airplanes for the last several decades. So tell me how it makes sense to not give that group consistent scrutiny and how it makes sense to give everybody else the identical scrutiny thus inconveniencing all?

(And before anybody feels compelled to point it out, I am the first to see that it is a tiny, tiny percentage of that ethnic group committing the crimes, and the vast majority of that ethnic group are law abiding, peaceful people.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am willing to be convinced that profiling is not effective.

Profiling can be an effective law-enforcement tool. However, if I understand your thesis correctly, you would have airport security rely heavily upon profiling. This is where it becomes a hindrance to security rather than a benefit. Others have posted why (and given real-life examples of how) profiling decreases the effectiveness of enforcement efforts.

Foxfyre wrote:

But so far you guys haven't convinced me.

'K.

Foxfyre wrote:

Unless we give maximum scrutiny to EVERYBODY thus lengthening the process to get on an airplane, it makes more sense to me to consistently focus on those who fit the profile of airline terrorists and do the random extra scrutiny on everybody else.

Now you're changing your tune. Before you wanted everyone else to slide easily through security. Now you merely want additional scrutiny of Middle Eastern-looking men. Which is it, Fox?

Foxfyre wrote:

Watler writes

Quote:
Well, according to your above, Foxfyre, liquor stores should be protected especially against tall skinny redheaded men, new red Dodge Ram pickups should be stopped and controlled at any town ...

If we have a rash of liquor store hold ups committed by tall, skinny, red headed men, and nobody else is knocking off liquor stores, you bet your bippy that tall, skinny red headed men should be scrutinzed much more carefully than the short, fat, bald ones. And if it is only Dodge Ram pickups hitting and running in a given area, then prudence advises to keep a close watch on any of those approaching an intersection.

Have I missed a rash of airline hijackings? Again, you are mixing your arguments. Either we're talking about US airline security (which have not had a rash of hijackings) or we're talking about world-wide airline security (where bombings/hijackings have been perpetrated by a variety of ethnicities). Stop trying to have it both ways.

Foxfyre wrote:

If you had a variety of ethnic groups highjacking and committing terrorist acts on and with airplanes, different criteria would reasonably apply. But it has been only one ethnic group who has been commiting terrorist acts on and with airplanes for the last several decades.

You are just plain wrong on this point. Female bombers in Russia. Richard Reid.

Foxfyre wrote:

So tell me how it makes sense to not give that group consistent scrutiny and how it makes sense to give everybody else the identical scrutiny thus inconveniencing all?

Again, you are mixing your arguments. Break it out into the separate components and we might get a reasonable dialogue going.

Some points we might discuss:
1) Would profiling passengers lead to increased airline safety?
My take: Only if used carefully and appropriately. But it should only be used to increase scrutiny on certain passenger types. One should not reduce scrutiny on other passengers.

2) Do the additional security measures we go through today actually increase airline safety?
My take: Even the government says no. We are being inconvenienced for no reason.

3) What additional safety/security measures could we take? Armed guards on flights (in addition to flight marshals)? Increased baggage scrutiny?

4) What screening methods should we remove to increase the convenience of flying? Eliminate random searches? Disallow fewer personal items (nail clippers, pocket knives, etc.)?

0 Replies

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know